[PATCH RT 4/6] drm/i915: Dont disable interrupts independently of the lock

[Steven Rostedt]

4.19.37-rt20-rc1 stable review patch.
If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

The locks (timeline->lock and rq->lock) need to be taken with disabled
interrupts. This is done in __retire_engine_request() by disabling the
interrupts independently of the locks itself.
While local_irq_disable()+spin_lock() equals spin_lock_irq() on vanilla
it does not on RT. Also, it is not obvious if there is a special reason
to why the interrupts are disabled independently of the lock.

Enable/disable interrupts as part of the locking instruction.

Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 8 ++------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
index 5c2c93cbab12..7124510b9131 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
@@ -356,9 +356,7 @@ static void __retire_engine_request(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
 
 	GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_request_completed(rq));
 
-	local_irq_disable();
-
-	spin_lock(&engine->timeline.lock);
+	spin_lock_irq(&engine->timeline.lock);
 	GEM_BUG_ON(!list_is_first(&rq->link, &engine->timeline.requests));
 	list_del_init(&rq->link);
 	spin_unlock(&engine->timeline.lock);
@@ -372,9 +370,7 @@ static void __retire_engine_request(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
 		GEM_BUG_ON(!atomic_read(&rq->i915->gt_pm.rps.num_waiters));
 		atomic_dec(&rq->i915->gt_pm.rps.num_waiters);
 	}
-	spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
-
-	local_irq_enable();
+	spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * The backing object for the context is done after switching to the
-- 
2.20.1